The Supreme Court's decision regarding electoral bonds posed a significant challenge, as it juxtaposed the right to information against the right to privacy. This scenario underscored the necessity for a delicate approach to reconcile conflicts between fundamental rights.
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud introduced the concept of "double proportionality" as an important judicial instrument in this context. This methodology comprises two main steps:
In addressing the electoral bonds issue, the Supreme Court applied the "double proportionality" test to evaluate the scheme's effect on these opposing rights. The judgment concentrated on whether the scheme's constraints on the right to information were warranted by its goals to prevent black money and safeguard donor confidentiality.
The Court determined that the electoral bonds scheme did not fulfill the criterion of being the least restrictive means available. It deduced that alternative approaches, such as electoral trusts, could accomplish the government's goals without significantly infringing upon either the right to information or the right to privacy.
This pivotal ruling not only invalidated the electoral bonds scheme but also set a benchmark for how courts might tackle comparable conflicts involving fundamental rights. The "double proportionality" test has become a vital framework for ensuring that governmental actions remain balanced and equitable, reflecting a profound dedication to protecting individual liberties from unwarranted state intrusion.
Kutos : AI Assistant!
